The State preferred a tax revision under Section 34(1) of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 challenging the STAT orders. The High Court found the matter involved no question of law as the Tribunal had merely remanded the case for rectification, warranting no interference.
Tax Revision Case dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
TAX REVISION CASE No.143 OF 2013
Dated: 11.09.2013
Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by the State Representative before STAT
.. Petitioner
And
M/s. Sri Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill
.. Respondent
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
TAX REVISION CASE No.143 OF 2013
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)
This revision is preferred by the State under Section 34(1) of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 against the order dated 03.04.2013 in T.A. No.325/2010 on the file of the A.P. Sales Tax and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.
The question of law formulated in the memorandum of grounds reads as under:
Whether the orders of the Hon’ble STAT relying on a decision of Tribunal in Annapurna Industries, Rangampally Vs. State of AP (STAT) (2013) 56 APSTJ 67 allowing the appeal U/s. 5(3) of CST Act is valid as per the facts and law or not?
However, on a careful consideration of the material available on record we found that the matter does not involve any question of law as sought to be contended by the petitioner. In fact, by the order under revision the Tribunal below had merely remanded the matter to the assessing authority for rectification of the defects pointed out. Hence, no interference is warranted.
Accordingly, the Tax Revision Case is dismissed. No costs.
_____________
G.ROHINI, J
____________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
Date: 11.09.2013 Mva
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the orders of the Hon'ble STAT relying on a decision of Tribunal allowing appeals under Section 5(3) of CST Act are valid as per the facts and law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by the State Representative before STAT
M/s. Sri Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill
G. ROHINI
CHALLA KODANDA RAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
